Because the British media feeds this narrative by making it look like the rich always win. The only changes in their wealth that the media draws attention to are increases, and if there's a drop that just gives a new baseline for the next round of headlines about increases. High inflation and increased interest rates got assets down across the board? Well, that means that the better off are getting lots of "unearned income" from interest whilst normal people's wages decline in real terms, never mind that the value of whatever savings they're earning that interest on is also dropping in real terms by more than they're making back in interest.

Because they do always win (in aggregate, in relation to other income brackets). With changing economic situations, those with more resources have more options, and are therefore on average able to adapt more effectively. Sure there will be winners and losers in every tax bracket but a quick look at a graph of income inequality over time should disabuse you of the notion that the rich are somehow at a disadvantage in all this.

The parent's point is that these events are not making the rich any richer than they would be.

Anyone with debt is better off with higher inflation as the amount required to pay back is worth less. Anyone who gave money away for interest takes a haircut. The richer entities usually loan money so this is better for the poor with debt. If wages don't raise than this changes

Rich people have a lot more debt than poor people. If you're too poor, nobody will loan you anything. The more money you have, the better the conditions will be which are available for you. Would a rich person ever consider something like your average payday loan? After the last couple of years with practically free loans, who do you expect to have borrowed more? The rich or the poor?

More than that - loans to the very rich will always have a below-inflation rate. or worst case a near-inflation rate.

Loans to the poor will always have an above-inflation rate. And the poorer you get the more extreme the rates.

Interestingly this is somehow not considered inflationary.

Because only one class will come out of this with MORE assets that at some point will return back to their higher valuable. It's a completely facetious argument. Sure you lost your house, but think of how much the poor billionaire's paper value dropped (while the billionaires asset acquisition continued apace taking advantage of the firesale forced upon the lower classes).

It isn’t facetious. People with investments and assets have lost a stack as inflation has taken off and could be waiting for a long time to return to the peaks. On a long enough timeline I’m sure you are right, but this year and likely over the next few years nobody is winning.

If a billionaire loses 90% of their net worth, they are still rich.

If a beggar doubles his money, he's still broke.

This is not relevant to the comment you are replying to.

Of course it's relevant. It's absolutely fundamental.

The real metric isn't total cash, it's outgoings vs income.

Billionaires do not have significant non-discretionary outgoings. At the billionaire level food, housing, and transport are essentially free, and your time is your own. There may be mild chagrin if you can't afford a bigger yacht or another private jet, but mild chagrin is all.

That's not true for most people. The poorer you get, the more aggressively you have to sell your time, and the more likely it is that your outgoings are going to exceed your income.

Not because you can't organise your finances, but because inflation and wage stagnation have made any other outcome impossible.

> property prices and rental yields are extremely precarious

I noticed you didn't say "declining" because that wouldn't be true.

Over what period?

1 Feb Guardian - house prices fall for fifth month in a row

1 March Guardian - house prices fall at fastest annual rate since 2012

And they're still hugely inflated compared to a couple of years ago, while wages are either constant or significantly lower in real terms.

The price-to-earnings ratio is 9X in London and around 5X in the rest of the UK.

Property speculation is always ten steps forward and one step back. Prices in the UK would have to crash by at least 50% to return to any kind of widespread affordability.

> Over what period?

At least 2-3 years, anything less is too small a sample size. You could be highlighting a 10% decline after a 200% increase.

> I also agree that low rates were good as you could invest in property with leverage and in businesses which could borrow and raise money to cheaply to grow.

You can't get something from nothing.

This was simply subsidizing business borrowing / capitalists at the expense of the labor's purchasing power.

It shouldn't be a mystery why inequality sky-rocketed to surpass Belle Epoch levels under ZIRP.